John Hutton: I am today publishing revised guidance for departments on the handling of Members' and Peers' correspondence.
	Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Office for National Statistics: Annual Report and Accounts 2004–05

Outcome of ECOFIN

Gordon Brown: On 12 July I chaired the first meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) under the UK presidency. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) represented the UK.
	I set out the UK presidency's work programme, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses, and highlighted measures to combat terrorist financing. ECOFIN agreed to offer advice and technical assistance to other countries which need to build up anti-terrorist finance capacity.
	The Council took note of progress on financing for development. This will be discussed further at the Informal ECOFIN ahead of the UN Millennium Development Goals Summit in New York on 14–16 September.
	The Council discussed support for the economic regeneration in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and invited the Commission and the European Investment Bank to pursue their work on options for the economic regeneration of this area and to report back to the Informal ECOFIN meeting in September.
	The Commission presented its Communication on a "Roadmap to an integrated internal control framework". Council conclusions were agreed on the process for taking this issue forward.
	The Council adopted an opinion on an updated stability programme presented by Portugal for the period 2005–09.
	The Council reached political agreement on a decision, under article 104(6) of the EC treaty, on the existence of an excessive deficit in Italy and on a Recommendation, under article 104(7), on action to be taken for its correction. The Council will adopt the Decision and Recommendation by written procedure at the end of July, once Council Regulation (EC) No. 1056/2005, which implements the new rules on the excessive deficit procedure, has entered into force.
	The Economic Secretary to the Treasury chaired a ministerial dialogue with the accession and candidate countries, approving joint conclusions on all four countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey), and joint opinions on Bulgaria's and Romania's 2004 pre-accession economic programmes.
	7 June ECOFIN
	I represented the UK the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in Brussels.
	The Council agreed Conclusions:
	on statistical governance;
	allowing for a change to the common side of euro coins to ensure that the map of Europe reflected the enlargement of the EU to 25; and
	on guidelines for Member States in determining the national side of their euro coins and also on the handling of euro coins unfit for circulation.
	The Council agreed to abrogate the existing excessive deficit procedure against the Netherlands.
	The Council adopted the broad economic policy guidelines. The text was submitted to the European Council in June for approval.
	The UK introduced a joint UK-Luxembourg Paper on "Financing for Development". The Council discussed the EU's strategy on financing for development. Member States confirmed their commitment to the ODA target of 0.7 per cent. GNI by 2015.
	Political Agreement was reached by the Council on the Third Money Laundering Directive. The Council agreed a general approach on company law directives covering annual and consolidated accounts.
	ECOFIN agreed that the Savings Tax Directive would apply from 1 July subject to final confirmations of bilateral agreements from European third countries and crown dependencies.
	ECOFIN welcomed the progress achieved by the code of conduct group under the Luxembourg presidency.

Des Browne: Regional funding allocations: Guidance on preparing advice is today being published by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself. This is in response to the consultation launched at the time of the 2004 pre-Budget report, devolving decision making: A consultation on regional funding allocations. The publication includes indicative regional transport spending over the 2004 spending review period, and indicative longer-term funding assumptions for transport, economic development and housing. Regions are invited to provide advice on priorities within the three indicative funding allocations. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The report can also be obtained free on the HM Treasury website.

Electoral Registration Report

Harriet Harman: I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government's response to the Constitutional Affairs and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committees' report Electoral Registration.
	As the Committees' report recognises, there is a challenge to be met in achieving the objectives of security, participation and full registration of all those who are entitled to the franchise. The Committees provide a thoughtful analysis of these issues, and a range of possible solutions.
	Work in this area is ongoing and many of the Committees' suggestions are under active consideration. The Government will inform the Committees and the House when this work has concluded.
	Copies of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Court Services Annual Report and Accounts

Tessa Jowell: In the statement I made to this House on 22 July 2004, I said that I would report further material developments in the move towards digital switchover. I am pleased to say that good progress continues to be made.
	By the end of March 2005, digital television was being enjoyed by over 62 per cent. of the UK households.
	A growing number of retailers and manufacturers, as well as other parts of the industry, are using the digital switchover logo and committing to give reliable information to consumers. Over 250 retail organisations (representing over 2,300 retail outlets, covering both nationwide chains and small independent stores), 20 manufacturers (covering most major brands) and seven manufacturers of aerials and/or coaxial cables had registered to use the logo by June 2005.
	A not-for-profit company, Switchco, has been set up by the public service broadcasters and the digital terrestrial television multiplex operators, with the support of manufacturers, and retailers, to co-ordinate the technical roll out of digital terrestrial television across the UK, region by region, to a timetable agreed by Government.
	Whilst the Government will continue to inform the public of the benefits of digital switchover, Switchco will lead a major communication campaign to educate the public and ensure everyone knows what is happening, what they need to do, and when. They will also liaise with TV manufacturers, retailers, aerial installers, digital platform operators and consumer groups to ensure the switchover programme is properly implemented.
	The new digital replacement licences for the commercial public service broadcasters (ITV, Channel 4, Five and Teletext) require the extension of the digital terrestrial network so that digital coverage can reach the same level as analogue. By this means we should be confident that the 98.5 per cent. of households who today are able to receive all the nationally available analogue public services will be able to receive the digital equivalents of these services. We are also considering with OFCOM how people who cannot receive analogue television could receive digital television through satellite, cable, ADSL or another emerging technology.
	We are publishing today the report of the digital switchover technical trial in Ferryside and Llansteffan and the associated research on Vulnerable Households. This trial investigated the technical issues for broadcasters and consumers associated with the switch from analogue to digital terrestrial television transmission. It has received overwhelming support from the community involved which was the first one to undergo the switchover process.
	We acknowledge that landlords who own or manage communal TV systems need to start taking steps to prepare for digital switchover. In association with the Chartered Institute of Housing, we are developing comprehensive new guidance for private and social sector landlords who have properties with analogue communal systems which need to be upgraded. The guidance will be published during the summer.
	As stated in our Manifesto, we are committed to achieving digital switchover between 2008 and 2012 ensuring universal access to high-quality, free-to-view and subscription digital TV.
	However, we need to ensure that the interests of elderly people and other vulnerable groups are protected. We know there will be some people who need assistance to understand, install and use digital television equipment.
	We will be running a pilot in Bolton this autumn. This will help us to understand how best to provide this assistance whether it is by using leaflets, dedicated phone lines, support from social workers and charities or installation by professional engineers.
	We are now close to the point where we will have the information which we require to confirm the region by region timetable for switchover. I expect to make a further announcement this autumn, and will report further progress to the House as appropriate.
	Copies of the report have been placed in both Libraries of the House and are available at www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk

Army Training and Recruiting Agency—Key Targets 2005–06

1990–91 Gulf Veterans Illnesses: Publication of Research

Yvette Cooper: In March my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and then Minister for Housing and Planning announced the majority of the 2005–06 round of planning delivery grant, a performance-related grant paid to local authorities in recognition of their work in planning. It is with pleasure that today I announce the remaining final element of that grant to the House.
	This final grant element, rewarded on the basis of local planning authority performance in making future plans for their local area, amounts to £21,545,275 across English local authorities and will see each of the 395 local authorities that delivered a satisfactory local development scheme to Government offices by 28 March 2005 receive £54,545.
	The planning delivery grant (PDG) is not ring-fenced or hypothecated beyond the condition that 25 per cent. of the total received in the 2005–06 financial year must be used for capital expenditure. In this year as a whole, £170 million has been invested in planning through the PDG, in addition to other efforts at boosting the resources available to enhance good planning, such as the raising of planning fees in April.
	The Government's aim is to enhance the resourcing of the planning system in a way that drives performance improvement and ensures effective delivery of our objectives for sustainable communities. It is specifically targeted towards meeting the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's public service agreements (PSA) 5 and 6. PSA 5 aims to achieve a better balance between housing availability and demand. PSA 6 requires all authorities to have local development frameworks in place (in accordance with agreed local development schemes) and to meet the best value development control targets by the end of 2006–07.
	Today we have also launched a consultation on the next round of planning delivery grant, 2006–07, which proposes a further £135 million in planning resource to be announced in November 2005.

Bill Rammell: On 12–13 July, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Ruth Kelly) chaired an informal meeting in London of Education Ministers from the EU, accession, candidate and EEA countries to look at how skills can contribute to raising productivity and therefore to the Lisbon goals for jobs and growth.
	The meeting consisted of four sessions, which considered:
	(1) Sector skills
	My right hon. Friend (Ms Kelly) outlined our presidency focus on highlighting how education and skills can contribute to the Lisbon agenda and the importance of skills responding to the needs of employers. Ministers discussed national experiences in developing sector-based approaches as a mechanism for employers to express skills requirements and to link education and training with labour market requirements in a knowledge economy.
	There was consensus that employers should be involved in both designing and delivering vocational training courses, but only a few Member States involved employers in academic education. Ministers agreed that vocational training should be made more attractive to learners.
	(2) European Qualifications Framework
	This session was focused on a presentation by Commissioner Figel of the European Commission's consultation on a proposed European Qualifications Framework. This would provide a tool for improved understanding of qualifications from different countries. This should help mobility of learners and workers and thereby alleviate skills gaps. The Commission consultation is planned to last until the end of the year. The idea was welcomed by ministers, but they underlined that it should be user-friendly and must be implemented on a voluntary basis. Commissioner Figel explained that the Commission would propose a Council and Parliament Recommendation next spring.
	(3) The Relationship of Skills to Productivity
	The presidency tabled a paper, prepared by the four UK Government Skills Alliance Departments and agreed jointly with the European Commission. This sets out evidence for the contribution of skills to increasing productivity. It also raises questions for ministerial discussion.
	Ministers discussed skills in a panel session with representatives from industry. John Monks, General Secretary ETUC, explained that unions could be ambassadors for learning. He pointed out that employees were often nervous about undertaking training, as they were worried about failing. Philippe de Buck, Secretary General of the EU-wide employers' organisation, UNICE, argued that governments needed to provide more support for training in companies particularly for SMEs. Bill Thomas, a member of the UK's ICT Sector Skills Council, underlined the importance of businesspeople understanding how ICT could be used to improve productivity.
	Ministers agreed that economies would increasingly need highly skilled people, but also underlined the importance of having good basic skills as a foundation for achieving this.
	(4) Possible Next Steps
	The meeting concluded with Ministerial discussion groups. I chaired one group, with other groups chaired by Phil Hope MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills, and Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in Scotland.
	During these groups, Ministers agreed that: skills needs should be addressed at a sectoral and regional level; better recognition of informal and non-formal learning was needed: and that businesses should be encouraged to invest more in training their employees. There was an interest in member states continuing to share experiences and learn from each other on sector-based approaches. There was also recognition that Education Ministers should explore ways of working across Government, with other Ministers with an interest in skills and productivity, and that Education Ministers should be closely involved drawing up Lisbon National Action Plans.

Jacqui Smith: This statement relates to schools' recurrent funding from 2006–07.
	1. In February this year my Department launched a consultation on proposed new arrangements for school funding from 2006–07. The proposals were designed to deliver greater certainty and stability for schools, building on the package of measures that we put in place in 2004–05. In particular, they were designed to guarantee delivery of the Government's commitment to increase spending on schools in every local authority area, to provide schools with the tools to take a strategic approach to their financial planning, to reduce bureaucracy, and to give schools greater control over how they used the resources available to them for the benefit of their pupils.
	2. I am today publishing a summary of the responses to the consultation and placing a copy of that summary in the Library of the House. I am grateful to all those who responded to the consultation, and in particular to our national partners with whom we have been discussing detailed implementation issues in parallel with the consultation.
	3. For the most part, the Government's proposals were welcomed by respondents to the consultation, who recognised the significant benefits that they would bring for schools. However, it is clear from the responses we received and from our discussions with partners that some aspects of the proposals imply significant changes to the way in which local authorities manage the budget-setting process. The Government also recognises that it is critical that changes to the school funding system—and in particular those which affect the distribution of funds between local authorities or schools—are introduced gradually, in order to avoid a repeat of the financial difficulties which some schools experienced in 2003–04.
	4. We therefore intend that the two years 2006–07 and 2007–08 should be a transitional period, and that the new arrangements should be introduced in full from 2008–09. During the first two years we will review a number of aspects of the system to ensure that when the new arrangements are fully implemented from 2008 they will be on a sound footing, and that funding is distributed in the most appropriate way possible.
	5. The introduction of three year budgets for schools was widely welcomed by respondents to the consultation. From 2008–09, schools will receive three year budgets in line with the spending review cycle.
	6. In the short term, the Government's decision to review its spending plans using a zero-based approach, to report in 2007, means that schools will receive a two year budget settlement in early 2006 to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08, but will not receive information for future years until after the spending review has reported. We intend to review the way in which the budget setting process has worked during 2006 and 2007, so that we can make any changes to the arrangements I am announcing today if necessary to ensure that the first full three year settlement in 2008–09 is implemented smoothly.
	7. It remains the Government's aim to move school budgets onto an academic year basis in due course. However, although many respondents welcomed this proposal, some practical concerns were raised which we believe we should discuss further with our partners before making a final decision. It also makes sense to let the other changes we are introducing in 2006 bed down before making this further change. School budgets for 2006–07 and 2007–08 will therefore be set on a financial rather than an academic year basis, but we will review during that period whether to move to an academic year basis for setting budgets from 2008–09.
	8. In deciding on how to implement multi-year budgets at school level, it has been necessary to strike a balance between certainty on the one hand and responsiveness to changed circumstances on the other. So we will require authorities to make key decisions before the start of each multi-year period, including the transitional two year period starting in 2006–07: for example how their local funding formula should work, and what the split should be between the amount of funding delegated to schools and the amount retained centrally by the local authority. But we will also allow flexibility for these decisions subsequently to be reconsidered in exceptional circumstances, and where the local Schools Forum agrees. This will be important to allow authorities to deal with significant and unexpected changes in circumstances.
	9. We have also considered carefully how far we need to be prescriptive in terms of how multi-year budgets for individual schools are put together, and how far we can leave this to local discretion. We have concluded that it is essential that budgets are updated annually to reflect changes in pupil numbers; and we propose to require authorities to use a consistent approach to this. However, we believe that other decisions—in particular the extent to which annual changes should be made to reflect changes in other data—should be taken locally in discussion with the Schools Forum, to ensure that local circumstances can be fully taken into account.
	10. The Learning and Skills Council will be carrying out its own consultation in the early autumn on its arrangements for providing school sixth forms with a two year settlement in 2006–07 and 2007–08.
	11. Two key safeguards which were introduced into the system in 2004–05 will remain. The first is the minimum funding guarantee for schools, which will be the key guarantor of stability in schools' budgets during the transition to the new arrangements. There will continue to be a need for the detailed operation of the guarantee to be varied where it would otherwise produce an anomalous outcome due to local circumstances, and in future we intend that some variations of this kind should be agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where they can't be locally agreed.
	12. The minimum funding guarantee will be set in advance for the whole of the period covered by schools' budgets. The Government's intention is to set the guarantee for 2006–07 and 2007–08 at a level which covers anticipated average cost pressures on schools in each of those years, including the full-year costs of implementing workforce reform, subject to a final assessment of those pressures. The precise level of the guarantee in each year will be announced in the autumn. We intend to review the way in which the guarantee should operate from 2008–09 onwards, including the link to cost pressures, with a view to ensuring that it leaves sufficient scope to redistribute funding in a way which responds to changing needs and priorities.
	13. The Learning and Skills Council has confirmed that it will match the minimum funding guarantee for secondary schools in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The Learning and Skills Development Agency has however today published a report which identifies some technical anomalies between the school sixth form and further education funding systems: we intend to examine the scope for addressing these, and will announce our conclusions in the autumn.
	14. The second key safeguard for schools in the current system is the limit on centrally retained expenditure within the schools budget: this ensures that the local authority's centrally retained budget cannot increase at a faster rate than funding delegated to the authority's schools, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This limit will continue to operate in essentially the same way as now; but in future any proposal by an authority to exceed the limit because of exceptional circumstances will need agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where it can't be locally agreed.
	15. The introduction of a ring-fenced grant for schools, or Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is an essential precursor to three year budgets for schools. Grant will be allocated to authorities to cover the same period for which we will require them to give their schools budget allocations, in line with the spending review cycle. That means we will allocate grant to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08 initially, and in late 2007 we will give authorities a three year settlement covering 2008–09 to 2010–11.
	16. The baseline for the DSG at national level will be the total of authorities' budgeted expenditure on schools provision in 2005–06. I can confirm that, as set out in the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, the Dedicated Schools Grant for 2006–07 and 2007–08 will increase by 6 per cent. over that baseline in each year. Every authority will receive an increase of at least 5 per cent. per pupil in both 2006–07 and 2007–08. To protect schools in authorities with rapidly falling rolls, there will also be a minimum overall increase for authorities in cash terms: we will announce in the autumn the level at which that will be set.
	17. The baseline for each individual authority will also start from its existing level of spend: there will be no need for authorities to add to the schools budget from their own resources in order to maintain spending at the current level. It nevertheless remains true that if we use the existing Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) distribution methodology to distribute the DSG as proposed in our consultation document, schools in authorities which currently spend above their SFSS allocation will, over time, see their funding level reduced in relative terms. A number of authorities have raised concerns about this. We have also been considering further whether the current approach, using a single formula, remains the most appropriate method for the distribution of DSG, under a system in which it determines far more closely the overall level of funding received by schools.
	18. These two considerations have caused us to consider a modified method of distribution which takes the existing level of spend as the baseline, and gives every authority a minimum increase in its per pupil budget each year: as I have explained, this will be 5 per cent. in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The remaining grant would be distributed according to criteria which would be determined by Ministers in advance of each multi-year budget period. Distribution against these criteria would be through a formula based on objective data.
	19. It would be possible for the existing SFSS formula to be used to determine the distribution of some or all of the increase above the minimum per pupil increase. We propose to keep the formula running in its current form, subject to some minor technical changes.
	20. We believe it is important to seek the views of local authorities and others on this proposal before deciding whether to go ahead. We therefore intend to publish a consultation document shortly which will set out the proposals in more detail. We expect to announce final decisions, along with provisional allocations for individual authorities, in the autumn.
	21. Because the modified method of distribution which we are proposing is in part a response to the problems of transition to the new system, we would propose to review its operation, to consider what lessons can be learned from the first two years of operation of the DSG, and also to work up proposals for the longer term. Equity of funding will be a key consideration in that review. We intend to complete that review by the summer of 2007, in time for the first three year allocations of DSG later that year.
	22. The purpose of the ring-fenced grant is, of course, that money intended for schools reaches schools. The Dedicated Schools Grant will therefore be paid to authorities on condition that it is allocated in its entirety to the authority's schools budget. However, an issue raised in the consultation was whether local authorities should be able to include money from the schools budget along with money from other local authority services and other agencies in combined budgets in support of "Every Child Matters" work. We have concluded that they should be able to do so, where they can demonstrate that there are clear benefits for schools and pupils, and so long as the educational benefit is broadly proportionate to the contribution made and the Schools Forum agrees.
	23. The consultation document also proposed a rationalisation of standards-related grants, to reduce complexity and bureaucracy and give schools greater freedom over how they spend their budgets. These proposals were broadly welcomed by respondents.
	24. We therefore propose to combine a number of existing grants into a single School Development Grant from April 2006, as set out in the consultation document. To ensure stability for schools as we move to the new arrangements, the distribution of that grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08 will reflect the current distribution of its constituent grants. The grant will be increased each year in line with the minimum funding guarantee, and this will be funded through a transfer from the DSG: that amount, and the allocations available to individual authorities, will be announced in the autumn. We intend to end matched funding for school grants through a transfer from the Dedicated Schools Grant to specific grants.
	25. Respondents to the consultation also agreed that it was necessary to retain some separate grants. Some will remain separate because they are targeted at particular schools, or time-limited. We have an existing commitment to keep the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant separate and ring-fenced until at least 2008. And some grants are spent at local authority level and are not devolved to schools: grants in this last category are being considered as part of a separate exercise to rationalise local authority grants.
	26. The School Standards Grant will remain separate from the consolidated grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08. We will replace the existing distribution methodology with a fairer formula based on a flat rate per school plus a per pupil amount, with transitional arrangements to ensure that no school loses out. Details will be announced in the autumn. Additional resources were allocated to the School Standards Grant in the Budget to help schools meet the challenges of developing extended services. As a result, from 2006–07 schools will be able to spend their School Standards Grant to support extended services.
	27. From 2008–09, we will consider bringing the School Development Grant and the School Standards Grant together into a single standards grant. We will consult fully on how that grant should be distributed in due course.
	28. The consultation document proposed that it should be possible, with Schools Forum agreement, for authorities to increase the amount they held back from the single grant from 2008–09 onwards. On reflection, we have decided not to go ahead with this proposal: we believe we should be working towards a position where schools decide for themselves whether to buy into additional central support from their authority.
	29. Schools Forums will have a key role to play both during the transitional period and in the longer term. They currently have an important role as an advisory body, and this will continue. But from 2006–07 we will also be giving them a number of decision-making responsibilities. These powers will relate to areas where we are providing some flexibility for authorities to move away from the requirements of the school funding regulations in order to take account of specific local circumstances: in the past it has only been possible to exercise such flexibilities with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government believes it is right that it should be possible to agree to the exercise of these flexibilities locally if a consensus can be reached. Where that is not the case, the authority will retain the right to apply to the Secretary of State for a decision.
	30. The evidence is that many Schools Forums are already working effectively. However, as their role changes from a purely advisory one to one in which they will also be asked to make a range of important decisions on behalf of schools, it is clearly essential that schools can have confidence in those decisions. That means ensuring that Forums' constitutions and proceedings are appropriate to their new role, and that they have access to appropriate support and guidance.
	31. We therefore intend to make a number of changes to the existing regulations governing Forums' constitution and proceedings, and draft regulations are being issued for consultation today. In addition we will publish, early in the autumn term, a good practice guide for Schools Forums and a range of other guidance to support them in exercising their new responsibilities.
	32. In advance of the first three year budget settlement in 2008–09, we propose a wider review of the role of Schools Forums, and the way in which they are working. We will want to look in particular at the question of whether Forums are properly representative of the schools in their areas, and ensure that they have access to appropriate advice and support to ensure that they exercise their responsibilities effectively. We will also want to consider whether the remit of Forums remains right given changes in the school system since they were established: we might for example want to consider whether they should have a role in considering capital as well as recurrent funding issues.
	33. Once they are fully implemented, the new arrangements I have outlined today will give schools greater certainty over their future budgets than ever before. And in doing so, they will provide schools with the tools they need to plan ahead with confidence, to improve their financial management, and to link their financial planning to the outcomes they are aiming to achieve. Taken together with other measures under the New Relationship with Schools which will provide a sharper focus on priorities for improvement specific to individual schools, these measures will ensure that each pound spent on school funding will have a greater impact in terms of delivering better education for our children.
	34. My Department is issuing detailed guidance on the new arrangements to local authorities and others today. A copy of that guidance will be placed in the Library. statement relates to schools' recurrent funding from 2006–07.
	35. In February this year my Department launched a consultation on proposed new arrangements for school funding from 2006–07. The proposals were designed to deliver greater certainty and stability for schools, building on the package of measures that we put in place in 2004–05. In particular, they were designed to guarantee delivery of the Government's commitment to increase spending on schools in every local authority area, to provide schools with the tools to take a strategic approach to their financial planning, to reduce bureaucracy, and to give schools greater control over how they used the resources available to them for the benefit of their pupils.
	36. I am today publishing a summary of the responses to the consultation and placing a copy of that summary in the Library of the House. I am grateful to all those who responded to the consultation, and in particular to our national partners with whom we have been discussing detailed implementation issues in parallel with the consultation.
	37. For the most part, the Government's proposals were welcomed by respondents to the consultation, who recognised the significant benefits that they would bring for schools. However, it is clear from the responses we received and from our discussions with partners that some aspects of the proposals imply significant changes to the way in which local authorities manage the budget-setting process. The Government also recognises that it is critical that changes to the school funding system—and in particular those which affect the distribution of funds between local authorities or schools—are introduced gradually, in order to avoid a repeat of the financial difficulties which some schools experienced in 2003–04.
	38. We therefore intend that the two years 2006–07 and 2007–08 should be a transitional period, and that the new arrangements should be introduced in full from 2008–09. During the first two years we will review a number of aspects of the system to ensure that when the new arrangements are fully implemented from 2008 they will be on a sound footing, and that funding is distributed in the most appropriate way possible.
	39. The introduction of three year budgets for schools was widely welcomed by respondents to the consultation. From 2008–09, schools will receive three year budgets in line with the spending review cycle.
	40. In the short term, the Government's decision to review its spending plans using a zero-based approach, to report in 2007, means that schools will receive a two year budget settlement in early 2006 to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08, but will not receive information for future years until after the Spending Review has reported. We intend to review the way in which the budget setting process has worked during 2006 and 2007, so that we can make any changes to the arrangements I am announcing today if necessary to ensure that the first full three year settlement in 2008–09 is implemented smoothly.
	41. It remains the Government's aim to move school budgets onto an academic year basis in due course. However, although many respondents welcomed this proposal, some practical concerns were raised which we believe we should discuss further with our partners before making a final decision. It also makes sense to let the other changes we are introducing in 2006 bed down before making this further change. School budgets for 2006–7 and 2007–08 will therefore be set on a financial rather than an academic year basis, but we will review during that period whether to move to an academic year basis for setting budgets from 2008–09.
	42. In deciding on how to implement multi-year budgets at school level, it has been necessary to strike a balance between certainty on the one hand and responsiveness to changed circumstances on the other. So we will require authorities to make key decisions before the start of each multi-year period, including the transitional two year period starting in 2006–07: for example how their local funding formula should work, and what the split should be between the amount of funding delegated to schools and the amount retained centrally by the local authority. But we will also allow flexibility for these decisions subsequently to be reconsidered in exceptional circumstances, and where the local Schools Forum agrees. This will be important to allow authorities to deal with significant and unexpected changes in circumstances.
	43. We have also considered carefully how far we need to be prescriptive in terms of how multi-year budgets for individual schools are put together, and how far we can leave this to local discretion. We have concluded that it is essential that budgets are updated annually to reflect changes in pupil numbers; and we propose to require authorities to use a consistent approach to this. However, we believe that other decisions—in particular the extent to which annual changes should be made to reflect changes in other data—should be taken locally in discussion with the Schools Forum, to ensure that local circumstances can be fully taken into account.
	44. The Learning and Skills Council will be carrying out its own consultation in the early autumn on its arrangements for providing school sixth forms with a two year settlement in 2006–07 and 2007–08.
	45. Two key safeguards which were introduced into the system in 2004–05 will remain. The first is the minimum funding guarantee for schools, which will be the key guarantor of stability in schools' budgets during the transition to the new arrangements. There will continue to be a need for the detailed operation of the guarantee to be varied where it would otherwise produce an anomalous outcome due to local circumstances, and in future we intend that some variations of this kind should be agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where they can't be locally agreed.
	46. The minimum funding guarantee will be set in advance for the whole of the period covered by schools' budgets. The Government's intention is to set the guarantee for 2006–07 and 2007–08 at a level which covers anticipated average cost pressures on schools in each of those years, including the full-year costs of implementing workforce reform, subject to a final assessment of those pressures. The precise level of the guarantee in each year will be announced in the autumn. We intend to review the way in which the guarantee should operate from 2008–09 onwards, including the link to cost pressures, with a view to ensuring that it leaves sufficient scope to redistribute funding in a way which responds to changing needs and priorities.
	47. The Learning and Skills Council has confirmed that it will match the minimum funding guarantee for secondary schools in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The Learning and Skills Development Agency has however today published a report which identifies some technical anomalies between the school sixth form and further education funding systems: we intend to examine the scope for addressing these, and will announce our conclusions in the autumn.
	48. The second key safeguard for schools in the current system is the limit on centrally retained expenditure within the schools budget: this ensures that the local authority's centrally retained budget cannot increase at a faster rate than funding delegated to the authority's schools, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This limit will continue to operate in essentially the same way as now; but in future any proposal by an authority to exceed the limit because of exceptional circumstances will need agreed locally by the Schools Forum and only come to the Secretary of State where it can't be locally agreed.
	49. The introduction of a ring-fenced grant for schools, or Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is an essential precursor to three year budgets for schools. Grant will be allocated to authorities to cover the same period for which we will require them to give their schools budget allocations, in line with the Spending Review cycle. That means we will allocate grant to cover 2006–07 and 2007–08 initially, and in late 2007 we will give authorities a three year settlement covering 2008–09 to 2010–11.
	50. The baseline for the DSG at national level will be the total of authorities' budgeted expenditure on schools provision in 2005–06. I can confirm that, as set out in the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, the Dedicated Schools Grant for 2006–07 and 2007–08 will increase by 6 per cent. over that baseline in each year. Every authority will receive an increase of at least 5 per cent. per pupil in both 2006–07 and 2007–08. To protect schools in authorities with rapidly falling rolls, there will also be a minimum overall increase for authorities in cash terms: we will announce in the autumn the level at which that will be set.
	51. The baseline for each individual authority will also start from its existing level of spend: there will be no need for authorities to add to the schools budget from their own resources in order to maintain spending at the current level. It nevertheless remains true that if we use the existing Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) distribution methodology to distribute the DSG as proposed in our consultation document, schools in authorities which currently spend above their SFSS allocation will, over time, see their funding level reduced in relative terms. A number of authorities have raised concerns about this. We have also been considering further whether the current approach, using a single formula, remains the most appropriate method for the distribution of DSG, under a system in which it determines far more closely the overall level of funding received by schools.
	52. These two considerations have caused us to consider a modified method of distribution which takes the existing level of spend as the baseline, and gives every authority a minimum increase in its per pupil budget each year: as I have explained, this will be 5 per cent. in 2006–07 and 2007–08. The remaining grant would be distributed according to criteria which would be determined by Ministers in advance of each multi-year budget period. Distribution against these criteria would be through a formula based on objective data.
	53. It would be possible for the existing SFSS formula to be used to determine the distribution of some or all of the increase above the minimum per pupil increase. We propose to keep the formula running in its current form, subject to some minor technical changes.
	54. We believe it is important to seek the views of local authorities and others on this proposal before deciding whether to go ahead. We therefore intend to publish a consultation document shortly which will set out the proposals in more detail. We expect to announce final decisions, along with provisional allocations for individual authorities, in the autumn.
	55. Because the modified method of distribution which we are proposing is in part a response to the problems of transition to the new system, we would propose to review its operation, to consider what lessons can be learned from the first two years of operation of the DSG, and also to work up proposals for the longer term. Equity of funding will be a key consideration in that review. We intend to complete that review by the summer of 2007, in time for the first three year allocations of DSG later that year.
	56. The purpose of the ring-fenced grant is, of course, that money intended for schools reaches schools. The Dedicated Schools Grant will therefore be paid to authorities on condition that it is allocated in its entirety to the authority's Schools Budget. However, an issue raised in the consultation was whether local authorities should be able to include money from the schools budget along with money from other local authority services and other agencies in combined budgets in support of Every Child Matters work. We have concluded that they should be able to do so, where they can demonstrate that there are clear benefits for schools and pupils, and so long as the educational benefit is broadly proportionate to the contribution made and the Schools Forum agrees.
	57. The consultation document also proposed a rationalisation of standards-related grants, to reduce complexity and bureaucracy and give schools greater freedom over how they spend their budgets. These proposals were broadly welcomed by respondents.
	58. We therefore propose to combine a number of existing grants into a single School Development Grant from April 2006, as set out in the consultation document. To ensure stability for schools as we move to the new arrangements, the distribution of that grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08 will reflect the current distribution of its constituent grants. The grant will be increased each year in line with the minimum funding guarantee, and this will be funded through a transfer from the DSG: that amount, and the allocations available to individual authorities, will be announced in the autumn. We intend to end matched funding for school grants through a transfer from the Dedicated Schools Grant to specific grants.
	59. Respondents to the consultation also agreed that it was necessary to retain some separate grants. Some will remain separate because they are targeted at particular schools, or time-limited. We have an existing commitment to keep the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant separate and ring-fenced until at least 2008. And some grants are spent at local authority level and are not devolved to schools: grants in this last category are being considered as part of a separate exercise to rationalise local authority grants.
	60. The School Standards Grant will remain separate from the consolidated grant in 2006–07 and 2007–08. We will replace the existing distribution methodology with a fairer formula based on a flat rate per school plus a per pupil amount, with transitional arrangements to ensure that no school loses out. Details will be announced in the autumn. Additional resources were allocated to the School Standards Grant in the Budget to help schools meet the challenges of developing extended services. As a result, from 2006–07 schools will be able to spend their School Standards Grant to support extended services.
	61. From 2008–09, we will consider bringing the School Development Grant and the School Standards Grant together into a single standards grant. We will consult fully on how that grant should be distributed in due course.
	62. The consultation document proposed that it should be possible, with Schools Forum agreement, for authorities to increase the amount they held back from the single grant from 2008–09 onwards. On reflection, we have decided not to go ahead with this proposal: we believe we should be working towards a position where schools decide for themselves whether to buy into additional central support from their authority.
	63. Schools Forums will have a key role to play both during the transitional period and in the longer term. They currently have an important role as an advisory body, and this will continue. But from 2006–07 we will also be giving them a number of decision-making responsibilities. These powers will relate to areas where we are providing some flexibility for authorities to move away from the requirements of the school funding regulations in order to take account of specific local circumstances: in the past it has only been possible to exercise such flexibilities with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government believes it is right that it should be possible to agree to the exercise of these flexibilities locally if a consensus can be reached. Where that is not the case, the authority will retain the right to apply to the Secretary of State for a decision.
	64. The evidence is that many Schools Forums are already working effectively. However, as their role changes from a purely advisory one to one in which they will also be asked to make a range of important decisions on behalf of schools, it is clearly essential that schools can have confidence in those decisions. That means ensuring that Forums' constitutions and proceedings are appropriate to their new role, and that they have access to appropriate support and guidance.
	65. We therefore intend to make a number of changes to the existing regulations governing Forums' constitution and proceedings, and draft regulations are being issued for consultation today. In addition we will publish, early in the autumn term, a good practice guide for Schools Forums and a range of other guidance to support them in exercising their new responsibilities.
	66. In advance of the first three year budget settlement in 2008–09, we propose a wider review of the role of Schools Forums, and the way in which they are working. We will want to look in particular at the question of whether Forums are properly representative of the schools in their areas, and ensure that they have access to appropriate advice and support to ensure that they exercise their responsibilities effectively. We will also want to consider whether the remit of Forums remains right given changes in the school system since they were established: we might for example want to consider whether they should have a role in considering capital as well as recurrent funding issues.
	67. Once they are fully implemented, the new arrangements I have outlined today will give schools greater certainty over their future budgets than ever before. And in doing so, they will provide schools with the tools they need to plan ahead with confidence, to improve their financial management, and to link their financial planning to the outcomes they are aiming to achieve. Taken together with other measures under the new relationship with schools which will provide a sharper focus on priorities for improvement specific to individual schools, these measures will ensure that each pound spent on school funding will have a greater impact in terms of delivering better education for our children.
	68. My Department is issuing detailed guidance on the new arrangements to local authorities and others today. A copy of that guidance will be placed in the Library.

Ben Bradshaw: My colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning (Yvette Cooper), and I are today announcing our intention to publish shortly the final versions of three policy documents on waste strategies and planning on which we consulted earlier this year. These are:
	(i) Planning Policy Statement 10: "Planning for Sustainable Waste Management" (PPS10);
	(ii) Guidance on the Preparation of Municipal Waste Management Strategies;
	(iii) Changes to Decision-making Principles in Waste Strategy 2000.
	Together these provide for a more integrated and effective framework in England for delivering the significant expansion in new waste management facilities needed to meet EU obligations and national policy. We have considered very carefully the responses to the consultation documents. While a number of detailed points were made, which have been addressed in finalising the documents, the approach set out received broad support. This includes:
	greater clarity on what is required at regional and local levels: to ensure decisions are made at the most appropriate level in a timely fashion, and effective integration of spatial planning and municipal waste management strategies;
	increased integration of waste management alongside other spatial planning concerns (e.g. housing and economic development);
	more emphasis on regular monitoring and review to ensure that plans and strategies are up-to-date.
	The planning system is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of the new facilities needed for all types of waste. The new PPS10 underlines the importance of planning for, and consenting, the necessary number and range of facilities to support sustainable waste management. Government expect development plans to be up-to-date and fit for purpose.
	Government also expect all local authorities to have in place a fit for purpose and up-to-date Municipal Waste Management Strategy. In some areas this is a statutory requirement. The new guidance provides greater clarity on the role of strategies and the key requirements for developing and reviewing them.
	Both this new guidance and the new PPS10 emphasise the need for effective community engagement and full appraisal of options. They will be accompanied by practice guidance which will provide further support and advice. Both sets of practice guidance are currently being finalised and we expect to publish them later in the summer.
	The policy review, which informed the preparation of these documents, included, in response to concerns expressed by a number of stakeholders, the underpinning decision-making principles set out in Waste Strategy 2000 1 .
	1 Primarily in Chapter 3 and Part 2.
	The key aim of waste policy of moving waste management "up the waste hierarchy" 2 has not changed. However, the principles of "proximity" of waste disposal and "self sufficiency" (as set out in the EU Waste Framework Directive) have been re-formulated and are now set out as objectives to be delivered through the framework provided by development plans and strategies. The objectives are that communities should take more responsibility for their own waste (self-sufficiency), and that waste should disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations (proximity).
	The role of the Best Practicable Environmental Option process in decision-making has also been reviewed. In future, the tenets that underlie BPEO will be delivered in spatial planning through plan-led strategies that drive waste management up the waste hierarchy. These strategies, at both the regional and local level, will be subject to Sustainability Appraisal and set within the community engagement that is central to the reformed planning system. Similarly, local authorities developing municipal waste management strategies should undertake Strategic Environmental Assessment, combined with a thorough assessment of social and economic factors 3 .
	PPS10 also includes a requirement for regional spatial strategies to take account of any Government advice on waste arisings and recycling potential and any nationally identified need for waste management facilities. The Government consulted on both what this advice should be, and who should be responsible for both drawing up and disseminating it. The consultation was again broadly supportive of the proposed approach. Our intention is to provide more information centrally to help inform waste planning and publish this periodically. We expect to publish the first such advice before the end of this year.
	The three documents that we intend to publish shortly will help deliver the Government's vision for sustainable waste management, as set out in the UK's strategy for sustainable development. This is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. Through more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the "waste hierarchy" of reduction, re-use, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort the Government aim to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste.
	Government recognise the size of the task and everyone has a role to play in managing waste more sustainably: manufacturers, waste managers, local communities and the authorities which serve them. The policy set out in these documents provides the clear, consistent, and integrated policy framework necessary to deliver a significant step-change in the delivery of new waste management facilities.
	2 Chapter 3 part 2.
	3 Where an authority is under a duty to produce a municipal waste management strategy the authority must carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in line with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. Where an authority is not required to produce such a strategy under any legislative provision, authorities are not under a duty to carry out
	an SEA, but we would encourage them to do so. Full details on the application of SEA can be found under the Environmental Assessment section at www.odpm.gov.uk/planning.

Margaret Beckett: I chaired the Council for the agriculture items on the agenda. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Commons), Ben Bradshaw, represented the United Kingdom and chaired the Council for the fisheries item. Also in attendance was the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Commons), Jim Knight.
	Before the Council I met a delegation from the EU federation of farm unions and farm co-operatives (COPA-COGECA) including representatives of the sugar beet growers organisation (CIBE).
	I began the Council by presenting the UK presidency work programme for the next six months. It includes amongst other things, sugar reform, the EU's Rural Development Strategic Guidelines, Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), Avian Influenza, Welfare of Broiler Chickens and a range of proposals to progress the sustainability of the fisheries industry.
	The Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection took the opportunity to announce adoption of a TSE Roadmap setting out the Community's BSE Strategy for the short, medium and long term, and signalled his intention to publish an Action Plan on Animal Welfare towards the end of the year.
	He also presented a proposed directive establishing minimum rules for the welfare of chickens kept for meat production. I said the presidency would take forward technical discussions on the proposal.
	At the request of France, Council discussed the measures introduced by the Commission on 1 July to protect the Bay of Biscay anchovy stock. The Commission was not prepared to relax its ban on fishing at this stage but said it would keep the situation under constant review.
	The Agriculture Commissioner presented her proposal for EU Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development, hoping for political agreement on this proposal in October. The guidelines aimed to ensure that rural development programmes contributed to the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives of jobs, growth and sustainability. Once the EU Guidelines had been agreed, they would be the basis for drawing up national strategies through a process of dialogue between Member States and the Commission.
	Over lunch the Agriculture Commissioner provided the Council with an update from last week's WTO mini-ministerial meeting under the Doha Development Agenda negotiations. There had been no major developments but she noted that its existing mandate had allowed the Commission to engage constructively in the discussion and to maintain pressure on other trading partners.
	The Council held its first discussion on Commission proposals to reform the EU sugar regime. There was broad support for a restructuring scheme instead of production quota cuts, and for a 10-year time horizon, but some member states argued that the proposed price cuts went too far and too fast, that compensation should be higher, and that the "Everything But Arms" import arrangements should be reviewed.
	Under Any Other Business, Italy called for the Commission to open crisis distillation measures before the end of July to deal with the critical situation on its wine market. The Commission replied that they needed time to analyse the situation, but would do so as quickly as possible.
	The Netherlands expressed concern about the clarity of Community marketing standards for poultry meat. In particular, they were concerned that poultry meat that had been frozen should not be labelled as fresh. They also called for the introduction of a label for poultry meat originating from EU. The Commission agreed that marketing defrosted poultry meat as fresh was not in conformity with EU standards. The Commission would reflect thoroughly on both questions.
	In light of an intervention by the Danish Minister, a proposal for a Council Decision providing for derogations from the Restrictions on Hazardous Substances Regulation for lead and for the flame retardant, Deca BDE, in electrical and electronic equipment, which had come forward for formal adoption from the Environment Council, was referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further discussion.
	In closing the Council I noted that the informal Agriculture Council would be a joint event with the Environment Council taking place in London from 10–12 September. The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council would be on 19 and 20 September.

Ben Bradshaw: The Government's strategy on waste is set out in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May 2000. The strategy is currently under review, and this statement updates Parliament on progress.
	We have made considerable advances since the original waste strategy was conceived, for example with work on delivering our 2010 Landfill Directive targets following the Strategy Unit report "Waste Not, Want Not" of 2002; the introduction of the local authority landfill allowance trading scheme and increases in landfill tax; substantially improved levels of household recycling; and the implementation of a range of European waste legislation. I am separately announcing with my colleague Yvette Cooper, Minister for Housing and Planning, a package of documents that together comprise a more integrated and effective planning framework in England for delivering the significant expansion in new waste management facilities needed to meet EU obligations and national policy. This includes changes to the decision-making principles in WS2000.
	It is now time to review progress and refresh our waste strategy. Our focus is on the protection of human health and the environment by producing less waste and using it as a resource wherever possible. We began consulting with the interested parties at the beginning of this year on the composition and scope of the strategy review. We have had a very positive response.
	In the light of these discussions and continuing development of waste and resource use policies here and in Europe, the Government intend to publish a substantial progress report on the waste strategy review this autumn. This will draw together stakeholder opinion so far and the major policy developments since WS2000 and "Waste Not, Want Not", and give the Government's view of likely policy directions. We shall in the progress report seek comments on the way forward, and the scope and content of an updated waste strategy.
	Subject to the outcome of this consultation, the Government intend to publish an authoritative revised waste strategy for England next summer. In the meantime, we shall continue to develop waste policies in line with the Government's objectives and our European and international obligations.

Tony Blair: Listed below are the names of special advisers in post at 21 July 2005, the special advisers' pay ranges for 2005–06, the number of special advisers in each pay band by department and the total pay bill cost of special advisers for 2004–05.
	All special advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers providing assistance on the full range of their appointing Minister's departmental responsibilities. Where a special adviser has a specific expertise or works mainly in a particular area of the department's work this is indicated.
	Advisers in post:
	
		
			 Appointing Minister Special Adviser in post Expertise 
		
		
			 The Prime Minister 1 Jonathan PowellRuth TurnerMatthew TaylorPolicy DirectorateDavid Bennett 2 Julian Le GrandConor RyanNicholas RowleyGeoffrey NorrisPhilip CollinsJustin ForsythStrategic Communications & PressDavid HillDavid BradshawHilary CoffmanDarren MurphyHuw EvansChris McShaneEvents & VisitsJo GibbonsKatie KayAngela Goodchild (p/t)John WattsParna TaylorResearch and Information UnitCatherine RimmerKatie O'Donovan Chief of StaffDirector of Government RelationsChief Adviser on StrategyHead of Policy DirectorateDirector of Communications Director of Events, Visits and Scheduling 
			 Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State Joan HammellMick HalloranAlan Schofield Chief of Staff 
			 Minister for Communities and Local Government Tim Williams Communities and Local Government 
			 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office John WilliamsJohn Woodcock  
			 Chief Whip (Commons) Sue JacksonSimon Benson  
			 Chief Whip (Lords) Margaret Ounsley  
			 Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor Garry HartPhilip Bassett  
			 Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Nick Bent Roger SharpSarah Latham  
			 Secretary of State for Defence Steve BatesJosh Arnold-Forster  
			 Secretary of State for Education and Skills Richard DarlingtonDan Corry  
			 Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Stephen HaleSheila Watson  
			 Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Mark DaviesMichael Williams Communications and EUUN; human rights; Asia, Africa and the Balkans 
			 Secretary of State for Health Liz Kendall  
			 Secretary of State for the Home Department Hannah Pawlby  
			 Leader of the House of Lords, and Lord President of the Council Joe Dancey  
			 Secretary of State for International Development Alex EvansBeatrice Stern Communications 
			 Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales Claire McCarthyPhilip TaylorAndrew BoldMatthew Burchell  
			 Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons James ConnalMichael Dugher  
			 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Tom ClarkTim HortonEmily Thomas (unpaid)  
			 Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland Andrew MaughamSam WhiteIain Gray Scottish affairs 
			 Chancellor of the Exchequer3, 4 Spencer LivermoreDamien McBride  
			 Chief Secretary Jonathan AshworthCathy Koester  
			 Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Sue ReganAnna TurleyKatherine RaymondMatthew Doyle Pension reformDisability, Inequality, Child Poverty, Housing Benefit reformEmployment and Incapacity Benefit reformMedia and Communications 
			 Minister without Portfolio Martin O'DonovanBlair McDougall  
		
	
	1 Plus Lord Birt who is the Prime Minister's unpaid strategy adviser.
	2 David Bennett is an expert adviser, appointed in accordance with para 2.11 of the Ministerial Code.
	3 In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Paul Gregg, Shriti Vadera, Michael Jacobs, Stewart Wood and Matt Cavanagh to the Council of Economic Advisers on special adviser terms.
	4 Plus Sue Nye appointed as an unpaid adviser.
	Pay bands for 2005–06
	The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2005–06 are as follows:
	
		
			  
		
		
			 Scheme Ceiling £133,900 
			 Pay Band 4 £82,423 to £98,907 
			 Pay Band 3 and Premium £61,543 to £95,609 
			 Pay Band 2 £48,355 to £63,824 
			 Pay Band 1 £37,366 to £50,148 
			 Pay Band 0 Up to £37,365 
		
	
	Advisers by Pay Band
	At 21 July 2005, the number of special advisers in each pay band by department is as follows:
	
		
			  Pay band 
			 Department 0 1 2 3 4 
		
		
			 No 10 1 1 2 3 4 2 12 — 
			 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister — 1 1 1 — 
			 Minister for Communities & Local Government — — — 1 — 
			 Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office — 2 1 — — 2 1 
			 Chief Whips' Offices (Commons and Lords) — 1 2 — — 
			 Constitutional Affairs — — — — 2 
			 Culture, Media and Sport — — 2 1 — 
			 Defence — — 1 2 1 — 
			 Education and Skills — — 1 1 — 
			 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs — — 1 1 — 
			 Foreign and Commonwealth Office — 1 — 1 — 
			 Health — — 1 — — 
			 Home Office — 1 — — — 
			 International Development  2
			 Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords — 1 — — — 
			 Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons — 1 1 — — 
			 Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales — 4 — — — 
			 Trade and Industry 3 1 — 1 — — 
			 HM Treasury 4 1 1 2 1 1 — 
			 Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Transport — 1 2 — — 
			 Work and Pensions — 1 2 3 — — 
			 Minister without Portfolio 1 1 — — — 
			 Total 4 20 21 20 3 
		
	
	Paybill costs
	The cost of special advisers in 2004–05 was £5.5 million 5 .
	1 Plus three special advisers who are paid beyond Pay Band 4 but within the scheme ceiling.
	2 Includes provisional salaries yet to be agreed. 3 Plus one adviser who is unpaid. 4 Plus the five members of the Council of Economic Advisers who are employed on special adviser terms (one in Band 4, three in Band 3, and one in Band 1). One of the members of the Council works part time. 5 This figure includes salary, severance pay and estimate of pension costs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY